Court No. - 76
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 15356 of 2021 Applicant :- Sunil Singh@ Bekhal Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Praveen Kumar Singh,Anurag Vajpeyi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Ajai Tyagi,J.
(1) Heard Shri Praveen Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A and perused the record.
(2) The instant application is being moved by the applicant namely, Sunil Singh@ Bekhal invoking the powers of Section 438 Cr.P.C. that they has every reason to believe that they may be arrested on the accusation of having committed a non- bailable offence in connection with Case Crime no.0269 of 2020, under Sections 323, 504, 307, 34, 201, 325 IPC, Police Station- Chaubeypur, District- Varanasi.
(3) From the record, it is evident that the applicant has approached this Court after straightaway without getting his anticipatory bail rejected from the court of sessions.
(4) Learned counsel for the applicant has drawn attention of the Court to Clause-7 of Section 438 Cr.P.C. (U.P. Act No.4 of 2019), which read thus :
"(7) If an application under this section has been made by any person to the High Court, no application by the same person shall be entertained by the Court of Session."
(5) After interpreting the aforesaid clause, it is clear that the Legislature in its own wisdom bestowed two avenues upon the accused with a rider that if the accused has chosen to come to the High Court straightaway, then he would not be relegated back to exhaust his remedy before the Court of Session first. In this regard, learned counsel for the applicant has placed reliance upon the Full Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Ankit Bharti and others Vs. State of U.P. and another, 2020(3) ADJ 575 in which the Bench has directed to spell out the extraordinary and special reasons for coming to the High Court. After perusal of those pleadings/reasons in this regard, this Court is satisfied that the reasons mentioned therein are quite convincing to entertain the present anticipatory bail application before this Court itself.
(6) Prior notice of this bail application was served in the office of Government Advocate and as per Chapter XVIII, Rule 18 of the Allahabad High Court Rules and as per direction dated 20.11.2020 of this Court in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application u/s 438 Cr.P.C. No.8072 of 2020, Govind Mishra @ Chhotu Versus State of U.P., hence, this anticipatory bail application is being heard. Grant of further time to the learned A.G.A. as per Section 438(3) Cr.P.C. (U.P. Amendment) is not required.
(7) Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that applicant has been falsely implicated in this case. During investigation, applicant was granted protection of interim bail. It is also submitted that as per x-ray report of the injured there is fracture on the little finger. It does not travel beyond scope of Section 325 IPC.
(8) Learned AGA has opposed the anticipatory bail of the applicant and submitted that in this case charge sheet has been submitted by the investigating officer under Section 307 IPC. He has pointed out the contents of recovery memo which shows that pellets and piece of glass found on the spot. Hence, it is evident that fire was made in the occurrence.
(9) Keeping in view the above facts and circumstances and gravity of offence, this Court is not inclined to exercise its powers in favour of the applicant, and thus the present anticipatory bail application is hereby rejected.
Order Date :- 30.9.2021 Ashutosh Pandey